Great, another overpriced apartment complex that sticks out like sore thumb.
The city council must have their pockets full letting developers have a field day with whatever they want build. It doesn't matter if it's ugly. Build it and the people shall come.

"I think it's great project," said council member Margaret Abe-Koga at the City Council meeting. "We talk about the Grand Boulevard on El Camino and I think this is the right step forward on that."

More like "Grand Traffic nightmare on El Camino". Once, again. They approve a building project without having the proper infrastructure in place.
Hey Marge...in case you haven't noticed. Work traffic sucks, morning and night.

Posted by She-ra
a resident of Shoreline West
on Nov 15, 2013 at 1:49 pm

There's a string of abandoned restaurants, shops and apartments on that block right now. I'd say the garbage and graffiti that comes along with the abandoned properties are a bigger eyesore than a functional space proposed by city council.

If a couple moves into a 1 bedroom apartment, which one gets to use the parking space and which one parks on the street?

For example, Bob takes the Google bus to work but has a car because he and Mary, his significant other, like to visit friends in the in areas that have poor VTA service. Mary works in Fremont and thus needs a car to get to work, shop, and visit friends.

If a couple moves into a 1 bedroom apartment, which one gets to useFXe3 the parking space and which one parks on the street?

For example, Bob takes the Google bus to work but has a car because he and Mary, his significant other, like to visit friends in the in areas that have poor VTA service. Mary works in Fremont and thus needs a car to get to work, shop, and visit friends.

Posted by Helen
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 15, 2013 at 2:20 pm

I love how Mountain View thinks that their BIG Apartment projects is great. What isn't great is how astronomical the rent for those new apartments will be. They just keep catering to the Google and the hi-tech companies in the vicinity. Nothing for the average working person that does not make $90K and above.

If a couple moves into a 1 bedroom apartment, which one gets to use the parking space and which one parks on the street?

For example, Bob takes the Google bus to work but has a car because he and Mary, his significant other, like to visit friends in the in areas that have poor VTA service. Mary works in Fremont and thus needs a car to get to work, shop, and visit friends.

If a couple moves into a 1 bedroom apartment, which one gets to use the parking space and which one parks on the street?

For example, Bob takes the Google bus to work but has a car because he and Mary, his significant other, like to visit friends in the in areas that have poor VTA service. Mary works in Fremont and thus needs a car to get to work, shop, and visit friends.

The developer is also betting that apartment tenants won't have much use for parking, as has been the case in other new apartment projects in the city occupied by tech employees who take shuttles to and from their jobs.

This is a nod to Google who is the current heavyweight in town. Remember SGI, they were once king of North Shoreline too, and now they are gone. It is foolish to build a permanent structure with admittedly under allocated parking on the hope that the occupants will all be techies who ride bikes, roller skate , take company buses or Zip cars etc. For those old enough to remember, our steel industry was massive, until it collapsed, leaving whole communities to rust away. More recently, the decline of our auto industry has left Detroit in ruins. My point is this, the developments we build should not be tailored to a specific company or industry that may disappear or leave tomorrow, leaving Mountain View to deal with the remaining mess. One thing is certain, cars are not soon going away no matter how much social engineering is pushed down our throats. There will just be fewer spaces and a lot more anger.

Posted by Flava Dave
a resident of Shoreline West
on Nov 15, 2013 at 2:53 pmFlava Dave is a registered user.

"I love how Mountain View thinks that their BIG Apartment projects is great. What isn't great is how astronomical the rent for those new apartments will be. They just keep catering to the Google and the hi-tech companies in the vicinity. Nothing for the average working person that does not make $90K and above."

Changes started a year ago. condos in the area up 20-30% over the last year. (if you're from the area, you get Royce's noteapads and updates ALL THE TIME, so you know this) (if you're not from the area, you say stupid things like ________doesn't know the are and is a developer shill)

The demographic of the area is changing faster all the time... Still plenty of cars parked all over and overnight campers though... so wonder what will happen with what is obviously not enough parking. It seems as though "the village" does not have enough parking for bldg 1--but thats only based off of seeing the same cars parked outside the unopened new bldg all the time. But I suppose there is nothing they can do if 4 people sneak into a 2 bedroom apt. and all bring cars

Posted by Done
a resident of Shoreline West
on Nov 15, 2013 at 3:08 pm

You people make me sick. How many people that live in Mountain have you asked,do you want a Grand Boulevard? Stupid Margaret, why pretend you give a shit about the tree? Jac seems to be the only sane one on the City Council.

Posted by OMV Resident
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 15, 2013 at 3:11 pm

Looks like a great project. Encouraging to see the retail component, the wider sidewalks and street trees, and the public plaza. If the developer is smart they will de-couple the parking spaces from the rent for the units, and not assign exactly 1 space to a 1-bedroom unit and 2 to a 2-bedroom. That way, those renters that choose to have fewer cars (for instance, 1 car for a 2-bedroom unit) can save money and let the extra spaces be used by the occasional 1-bedroom unit that needs 2 spaces. Much more efficient than just throwing extra parking in, as Jac Siegel apparently thinks the developer should do.

Posted by Unhappy Mountain View
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 15, 2013 at 3:14 pm

I just love how Mountain View thinks it is so great to build another big apartment complex that no one can afford unless you are making over the $90 income, like the Google and hi-tech companies in the near vicinity. Mountain View is pushing out all the everyday working people that don't even make those type of salaries. The rents are soaring, and the tech companies get new apartments that they pay through the nose.

Keep 'em coming, because we don't have any traffic issues or any infrastructure issues. At least not yet.

"The developer is also betting that apartment tenants won't have much use for parking, as has been the case in other new apartment projects in the city occupied by tech employees who take shuttles to and from their jobs."

Keep 'em coming, because we don't have any traffic issues or any infrastructure issues. At least not yet.

"The developer is also betting that apartment tenants won't have much use for parking, as has been the case in other new apartment projects in the city occupied by tech employees who take shuttles to and from their jobs."

Keep 'em coming, because we don't have any traffic issues or any infrastructure issues. At least not yet.

"The developer is also betting that apartment tenants won't have much use for parking, as has been the case in other new apartment projects in the city occupied by tech employees who take shuttles to and from their jobs."

Keep 'em coming, because we don't have any traffic issues or any infrastructure issues. At least not yet.

"The developer is also betting that apartment tenants won't have much use for parking, as has been the case in other new apartment projects in the city occupied by tech employees who take shuttles to and from their jobs."

Keep 'em coming, because we don't have any traffic issues or any infrastructure issues. At least not yet.

"The developer is also betting that apartment tenants won't have much use for parking, as has been the case in other new apartment projects in the city occupied by tech employees who take shuttles to and from their jobs."

Keep 'em coming, because we don't have any traffic issues or any infrastructure issues. At least not yet.

"The developer is also betting that apartment tenants won't have much use for parking, as has been the case in other new apartment projects in the city occupied by tech employees who take shuttles to and from their jobs."

Posted by keep them coming
a resident of Monta Loma
on Nov 15, 2013 at 3:28 pm

Keep 'em coming, because we don't have any traffic issues or any infrastructure issues or or problems with enough schools. At least not yet.

"The developer is also betting that apartment tenants won't have much use for parking, as has been the case in other new apartment projects in the city occupied by tech employees who take shuttles to and from their jobs."

Posted by a senior
a resident of another community
on Nov 15, 2013 at 6:55 pm

I wish someone would build a condo with 2 or 3 bedrooms. The key is having everything on one floor. I don't fit in low income senior, nor rich senior. I would love to see a mid price condo so we could move from our house. Apartments seem to be what everyone is building now, that's not what we need.

Posted by CopperC
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 15, 2013 at 7:22 pm

Development is welcome, but 1 parking space per bedroom is inadequate for this location. Unless only loners are allowed to live there. Many 1 br occupants have two cars. Some of them have friends, and family visitors. At this location parking for guests would be pretty far away. Local streets will be jammed by the extra cars of the occupants. Guests will have a tough time parking near the family they want to visit. Restricting occupants to loners is the best bet.

Posted by Greg David
a resident of Old Mountain View
on Nov 15, 2013 at 11:08 pmGreg David is a registered user.

Another council fail....

Should be AT LEAST 1.5 spaces per bedroom....

24 spaces for retail my be shy as well, depending on what goes in.

As for Ronit and her trees... get over it... it's a RENEWABLE resource and YOU DON'T OWN THE LAND!

As for chargers, at the rate people are buying Teslas around here, there should be a charger at every other spot... Maybe we could redirect some of this bike share funding to e-car chargers since it obvious what consumers are choosing for transportation.

Posted by Old Ben
a resident of Shoreline West
on Nov 16, 2013 at 11:27 am

Killing an ancient oak tree for the sake of parking space says it all about what this town has become. You are building the slums of tomorrow, and creating the conditions for a perfect storm of traffic gridlock in Mountain View. Additionally, there's the water issue. You can build all you want to, but the water has to come from somewhere, and it's a finite resource.

Another project straight from the book of "United Nations Agenda 21".
Wait until the tenants hear the wail of sirens all day and night from ambulances going to and from the local hospital. The noise from traffic is bad enough.
Then there is the growing problem of traffic congestion.
The article does not mention the amount of space for each apartment. I wonder if it is the new "dog kennel" size 200 square foot spaces.
Meanwhile, I am headed to Sunnyvale to enjoy a tasty Chick-Fil-A sandwich.

Another huge cement structure. Just what Mountain View needs. And isn't it wonderful that we can plow down heritage trees as long as it is to put in a large, ugly cement structure. I'm so glad we have our city council to tell us what we want, rather than listening to what we tell them.

Thank you Jack Siegel, for voting against another high density space. Now if we could find 6 other people to be on the council and exercise some restraint when it comes to this foolish "Grand Boulevard" nonsense, that would be great.

Posted by Janet Lafleur
a resident of Rex Manor
on Nov 17, 2013 at 8:02 amJanet Lafleur is a registered user.

@Bikes2Work The project is on the NE side of El Camino smack in the middle of the long block between Escuela and Rengstorff.

This project is smart. It widens the sidewalk from the pathetic 4-foot sliver of pavement that's so broken up it's hard to push a baby stroller. It combines retail with housing to create a more active walkable environment.

What I like best: the project includes a path for people walking and biking from Latham. Right now, if you live on Latham directly behind this property and want to visit someone at the hotel or shop next door, it's a 1/2 mile or 8 minute walk all the way around to either Escuela or Rengstorff. No wonder many people choose to drive rather than walk. With the new path, walking will be as fast as driving and faster during higher traffic times.

As for the parking, like Martin Omander, I've never rented an apartment that offered more than one parking space for a one bedroom apartment. And these days, I meet more and more couples who share a single car because it's easier to get around for many trips without one in Mountain View, between work shuttles, buses, walking and biking.

This is especially true for younger couples paying off student loans or saving for a home. Cars are expensive and they'd rather not buy and maintain two if they don't need to. AAA says the average car in California costs 10,000 a year. Why buy two if you can get away with one? That extra $830 could be spent on a lot of other things.

Posted by MVResident67
a resident of Cuesta Park
on Nov 17, 2013 at 9:25 am

RE: parking...

One parking place per bedroom is simply not sufficient. Are we now to presume that one bedroom = 1 car is the gold standard? That's laughable. Where are visitors going to park? Maybe part of the lease agreement for these apartments should contain a clause requiring residents to guarantee that all guests will walk, ride their bikes or take the bus if they want to visit someone in this new development, since there clearly is not going to be sufficient parking to handle the residents, much less visitors. Sounds ridiculous, doesn't it? Well, so is the ill-conceived parking scheme proposed for this development.

One space per apt may seem ok now.. That idea worked great for a milk store with 7 spaces. Then came Handicap, visitors, delivery, no off street parking, bus lanes and work at home. Then the current std of 1.5 seems smarter. Then add the shared parking with shoppers and 2 is more realistic.

Posted by Steven A.
a resident of Shoreline West
on Nov 17, 2013 at 10:43 pm

Good news. That section of El Camino is blighted with boarded up buildings on both sides of the road. New apartments are needed, but I have doubts about the success of any retail venture moving there. The problem with all those little shops along El Camino ... no convenient parking. The corner of El Monte has a CVS, Starbucks, lots of shops and oodles of parking.

Posted by Josh Handel
a resident of Shoreline West
on Nov 18, 2013 at 6:46 pm

I live just a couple of blocks away from this site, the project looks great! It really could have been 2 stories taller though, there are no single-family homes surrounding the site so it wouldn't have been imposing on anyone's suburban idyll.

The bottom line with the parking is that all this new construction is meeting the current city requirements for parking, or at least the developers paying $$ for not doing so, as on the corner of Bryant & Dana. If the parking requirements are fully met, there still will not be enough parking because the City of MV has changed the parking requirement in order to intentionally produce a shortage to get us out of our cars and onto VTA buses and other public transit. The mayor has stated that there is currently an over abundance of parking in downtown MV. I'm not happy with this misconception and manipulation! So what are we going to do about it? You all better start speaking up in person at the City Council meetings and rallying yur friends & neighbors to join in protest of this failure to accomodate the citizens of MV.

I'll rush out one more comment (please forgive the typos a rush allows). One parking space per bedroom is indeed the gold std. according to the city. And the max is 2, even if it is a three bedroom apt. or more! And the guest spaces are supposed to come out of the total of the 1 space/bedrm, max of two!
Okay, one more comment: The gridlock on ECR is also intentional to cause us to give up on our cars. It has been said that this is to clean the air, because buses are so clean? What about all the new improved electric cars available? I put 96 solar panels on my roof so I can provide clean electricity for myself and all my friends. But that doesn't count. Like the train is so clean or anything VTA has to offer is. The truth is we have less freedom to assemble and to go places we need to in a hurry. Even the "Community Room" at MV Public Library has for the last 5 yrs. been for use by the government only! We are not allowed to assemble at our library!

Read up more on what you are trading if you think you are trading vertical sprawl (& gridlocked traffic & tons of traffic through residential neighborhoods) FOR horizontal sprawl. Don't be fooled and hoodwinked. Scary major loses of rights and freedoms are at stake. Read up on it!
And as for idiots on the council: For sure, but we at least have Jac Siegel, until he terms out (as do the ladies) and fortunately there is John McAlister. He so very often is the real voice of reason on that council! But 2 out of 7 does not a majority make. We'll have to be really careful with our votes next November!

Don't miss out on the discussion!Sign up to be notified of new comments on this topic.

Email:

Post a comment

Posting an item on Town Square is simple and requires no registration. Just complete this form and hit "submit" and your topic will appear online.
Please be respectful and truthful in your postings so Town Square will continue to be a thoughtful gathering place for sharing community information
and opinion. All postings are subject to our TERMS OF USE, and may be deleted if deemed inappropriate by our staff.

We prefer that you use your real name, but you may use any "member" name you wish.